On 02/25/2007 05:44 AM, Davor Ocelic wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:25:56 -0800
> Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/25/2007 05:15 AM, Davor Ocelic wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:09:14 -0800
>>> Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> In the Standard Syntax section of
>>>> <http://icdevgroup.org/xmldocs/glossary/ITL.html> there is a "note" that
>>>> references that [/page] is a macro. This is a really bad example
>>>> considering that [/page] is now obsolete.
>>> There is also a "note", immediately after, that </a> is preferred,
>>> so I don't see a problem.
>>>> Last time I checked "preferred" was not the same as "required". IMO it
>> should either not be mentioned at all or a note stating it is OBSOLETE
>> should be put there. It really is bad form, IMO to use an example that
>> is obsolete.
>> I was under the impression that, even though we discussed it,
> [/page] and [/order] were not removed from the source.
>> I see now that they were, so I'll update the docs. Thanks for the report.
>> For extra points, you could submit a small diff to fix it yourself.
I would, but I don't know docbook format, so I'd probably mess it up.
> Also, consider writing more accurate reports in the future;
> "obsolete" means that something is no longer in use (for different reasons),
> not that it cannot be used any more even if the users wanted it.
I was under the impression that:
discouraged - no plans for removal, but you shouldn't use it in new code.
deprecated - we plan to remove it in a future release. Get ready.
obsolete - it's gone.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, what would the correct term be for
"obsolete", above?
> Also, capitalizing the word "obsolete" in your second reply
> was completely unnecessary.
Sorry about that, got carried away.
Peter